Rating: 
Summary: Christian worldview flawed
Review: The reviewer speaking of Colson's "us vs. them", I believe, was trying to critique Colson's presentation of the "Christian worldview". Everyone has a bias, a "worldview" if you will. Colson is among the Christian writers who argue for adopting the Christian bias, or worldview. I read the book because of a Christian friend, but I'm no more convinced the Christian bias or worldview is valid.In a chapter, "God Makes No Mistakes", Colson says that his grandson is autistic. And Colson even admits telling God that "it isn't fair" and he prayed hard for a "miraculous intervention." But despite the child's autism, the child experiences joy, and provides joy to his family. I'm certainly not going to criticize this, of course it is good to make the best of what circumstances you are dealt. But it seems obvious that if tomorrow a cure for autism is found, Colson would use it immediately. To say "God makes no mistake" is a slap in the face of people's lives that don't turn out so well as Colson's grandchild. If "God makes no mistakes" then we shouldn't investigate a cure for AIDS. In fact, it the belief that "God makes no mistakes" is what lead some Christians to declare that AIDS was God's wrath against homosexuals. If "God makes no mistakes" we shouldn't use vaccines. We shouldn't have doctors. If God wanted me to have pneumonia, who would I be to say otherwise? Colson has a chapter, "Is Science our Savior" where he criticizes the elevation of science as a religion. Of course he more than likely uses the fruits of science every day, if he owns a car, a computer, surfs the Internet, etc. Of course I'm sure that Colson would say that using science is okay so long as you don't make it your religion. But really, there is no way to make such a distinction. Either "God makes no mistakes" and doing anything to alter God's creation is wrong and thereby all use of science is wrong. Or God does "make mistakes" and man's quest to control his environment is valid. You really can't have it both ways. It is this fundamental contradiction that has caused religion to repeatedly condemn various scientific discoveries. Of course every one knows of Galileo, but he is hardly the only scientist persecuted by religion. The discovery of germs causing disease was considered heresy. The discovery that matter was made of atoms was considered heresy. Eventually, the scientific evidence for the "heresy" becomes overwhelming to the point it becomes accepted even by religion. But then the cycle repeats with a new "heresy". The current debate over evolution is just another repeat of the cycle. Sooner or later, the evidence for evolution will be sufficiently overwhelming to even Creationists. But surely there will be another discovery to be labeled "heresy". The Christian worldview attributes existence of evil in the world to original sin and/or man's free will. If evil exists because of "original sin", well, it seems rather drastic that thousands of years of evil have to exist because of Adam succumbed to curiosity. And curiosity is presumably a trait God gave Adam anyway. Or if evil exists because of man's free will, well, isn't there free will in heaven? Is there evil in heaven? Which brings us back to the Creationist arguments. The other reviewer that noted that Colson doesn't say whether Colson is an "old-earther" or not is quite right, but he didn't continue the thought far enough. If God spent billions of years creating various life forms, presumably in God's quest to perfect man, then death and pain existed before man. And so original sin can not be the source of death and therefore cannot be the source of evil either. That is why Creationists are so afraid of the question of how old the earth is.
Rating: 
Summary: If it only were practiced in his organization
Review: The book is compelling, no question about that. His insight into the Christian worldview is on target. The book should be read... and applied. Especially by the executives of the organization he is the titular head of. Before he is canonized, I'd encourage you to interview former employees of his organization to find how the Christian worldview was applied to them. Like the Wizard of Oz, the appearance is one thing, the reality is quite another.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent work on the subject
Review: Well written and well researched. (The book is not really as long as it seems, since 100 pages in the back are simply footnotes/references!) If you are a believer, this will give you a better and more complete understanding. If you are not, it will help you get past non-believers' PR spin, smoke and mirrors to help you make important decisions in your life about faith. It is true that many people promote things that they now know or sense are wrong, just to not have to change their position publicly. Colson has identified many of these cases.
Rating:
Summary: Colson's "us vs. them" doesn't work
Review: As I have been studying Creationism vs evolution, I'm going to focus my review primarily on Colson's Creationist views. First off, I'd really like to be a Creationist. I sympathize with Colson's moral convictions, and agree that Christian morality depends on the existence of a Christian God. What I'm less convinced of is the scientific case for the existence of God, which Colson attempts to present. For a moment, I'm going to agree with Colson. I enjoyed Colson's presentation on the vast number of amazing coincidences in the structure of the universe that are required to make life, at least as we know it, possible. One that I hadn't heard before is that Colson contends that the rate of expulsion of matter at the time of the Big Bang is critically important. Had the matter been expelled much faster, and galaxies would not be possible. Much slower, and the universe would have collapsed too quickly for life to have evolved. Colson contends that the "sweet spot" for the speed of matter expulsion is amazingly small. This coincidence and all the other amazing coincidences required to make life possible does lead credence to Colson's contention that the probability for the universe to "accidentally" create life is extremely small. So this leads one to the possibility of intelligent design. Okay, so far I'm with Colson. Colson is a staunch supporter of Big Bang Theory. Prior to Big Bang Theory, scientists believed that the universe and time had no beginning or end. Big Bang Theory proves a specific time of origin to the universe, "just like the Bible says," according to Colson. Further, a law of science is that matter and energy can not be created or destroyed, which seems to have happened at the time of the Big Bang. So, Colson contends this proves something outside of the universe created it, which could only be God. I agree that this also seems plausible. Like most Creationists, Colson contends the fossil record doesn't indicate transitional life forms and therefore each animal must have been specifically created. Further, like most Creationists, he contends the variations we see in life, such as pesticide-resistant insects are merely deviations around a norm and animals do not transition from one kind to another. Colson doesn't specifically date the universe or the Earth, but given his total support of Big Bang Theory, I have to conclude Colson accepts the age implications of Big Bang Theory. Therefore, Colson must be an "Old-Earth Creationist". "Old-Earth Creationists" accept that the Earth and the universe is billions of years old, while "Young Earth Creationists" contend the universe is only a few thousand years old. But I find it noteworthy that Colson doesn't come out and say whether he is an "Old-Earther" or not. The fact that he doesn't make a stand comes off as side-stepping the issue, and it is very important, as I will show. But as I said, Colson must be an Old-Earther if he accepts the big bang. But where does that lead us? Let's say for a moment that Colson has proved his case, and has proved that God created all life. At best, what has Colson proved? Colson seems to have proved that God created the universe billions of years ago. God created simple life forms on Earth a few billion years ago. Every few thousand or million years, God goes around and creates some new life forms, and lets some of His older creatures become extinct. God seems to have created vast numbers of creatures for no apparent purpose other than for us to find fossils of. Though of course God creates new simple creatures frequently, God chooses a general pattern of creating more complex creatures later than simple creatures, over a span of several billion years. God even created other close-kin hominoids to Man such as Neanderthal Man not all that long before homo-sapiens, only to allow Neanderthal Man to become extinct. And finally, after billions of years, God finally decides to create Man. If this is what Colson has proved, is it really what he wanted to prove? Did Colson want to prove that God chose a bizarre method of creation that looks extremely like evolution? And does Colson's Creation story resemble Genesis? As I noted, the fact that Colson side-steps the Young-Earth/Old-Earth issue, and this leads me to believe he doesn't want to directly criticize the Old-Earthian Christians - a significant portion of his audience. Yet Colson is indirectly showing that science clearly disputes a Young-Earthian Creation story. When talking to Darwinists, Young-Earthians and Old-Earthians try to present a united front. But amongst themselves, they greatly disagree with each other. Young-Earthians contend that the Old-Earthians don't present a God consistent with the Bible. But Old-Earthians accept that there is overwhelming evidence of the universe being quite ancient and contend that some of Genesis is to be taken allegorically. Therefore, they contend that the six days of Creation are not six literal Earth days. But the Young-Earthians are right in the fact that the Old-Earthian Creation story - the Creation story as presented by Colson - bears utterly no resemblance to the Genesis account. At very best, Colson can claim to have proved some other God and not the Christian God created the universe! You don't even have to be an evolutionist to see that the Old-Earthians and the Young-Earthians effectively disprove each other. I did want to touch upon Colson's "us vs. them" approach. Many Christians, including Colson, see themselves as warriers against the evil, naturalist philosophy being thrust upon society. The framework of the book is always the "Christian warrier" framework. And this approach is used even in the areas of the book not about Creationism. But the only way he can make this "us vs. them" approach work is to side-step significant issues such as whether Genesis is literal or figurative.
Rating:
Summary: How Now Shall We Live
Review: Foundational to the Christian faith this book is easy to read, logical and usable. Every adult Sunday School class should make this book a topic of study in the coming year. Colson has elevated his place in the body of contemporary Christianity from story teller to systematic theologian.
Rating:
Summary: A Christian Inspiration/Apologetic Masterpiece
Review: Chuck Colson considers "How Now Shall We Live?" to be his "legacy" book. In it he covers many areas of modern-day life using a strongly focused Biblically-based perspective. At almost 600 pages, the book is somewhat lengthy, but never boring, and unarguably worth the time. I loved reading this book from front to back. Colson uses his experience and wisdom to discuss a wide range of topics like the most recent developments in the evolution debate, post-modernism, Western Culture, and many other aspects of modern-day life. This is a book that I have recommended to many friends, and I have heard nothing but strongly enthusiastic responses from those who have read it. This is a book that all believers will love reading and be greatly encouraged yet deeply challenged by. Chuck Colson is an amazing man and a great writer. Buy this book even if you don't have time to read it right away because you will read it at some point and truly enjoy the time you spend doing so.
Rating:
Summary: Wow! Is this important!
Review: This book is possible the best and most important book that I have ever read (excluding the Bible). If you are a Christian or a non-Christian, this book is a must read. It will answer questions that you never realized that you had. I have recommended this book to over 15 people, and everyone of them who has read it agrees with me on the value of the content. Don't pass it by!
Rating:
Summary: A Ready Defense
Review: Chuck Colson writes an easy-to-read apologetical argument that appeals to the intellect and to the heart. Rather than giving straight facts, Colson weaves victorious testimonials with defenses of the Christian faith from a philosophical, scientific and sociological perspective. How Now Shall We Live is an updated version of Francis Schaeffer's How Shall We Then Live while being more applicable to today's culture. Colson's book begin's with a definition of a world view, pointing out its three distinct parts: Where did we come from and who are we?, What has gone wrong with the world? and What can we do to fix it?. He traces these three parts throughout the entire book, answering these three questions from a Christian perspective and contrasting it with other world views. Finally, he tells Christians how to respond to other views, answering the question, "How now shall we live?" How Now Shall We Live can be seen as an apologetical handbook for compassionate believers and nonbelievers. Although a long book, it is written with 45 short chapters that keep the reader from being bogged down and giving up on the book. How Now Shall We Live is a well-planned and concise world view analysis that uncovers common misrepresentations and answers challenges to the Christian faith.
Rating:
Summary: Too Many Unanswered Questions Answered !
Review: This is a great book and gives the reader enough information to digest and reflect on. To get better answers to your evolution questions read the book by Lee Strobel "A Case For The Faith" this book shows that evolution is definitely theory.
Rating:
Summary: It's a crazy world...
Review: Living in the 21st century as a Christian can be a confusing process. It seems like the entire world is looking at things in a totally different way. And you know what? They do... Colson bases this book on how we, as Christians, should take a Christ-centered "worldview" as opposed to other around us. Colson offers practical guidance on living in a way that can change the world for Christ. Colson also delves into preliminary apologetics - enough so that the reader will be better prepared to defend his or her faith after reading it. Colson is very conservative. You will find yourself challenged in many areas of your life. I was challenged by thinking about the music I listen to and the television programs I watch. While I didn't agree with each of Colson's conclusions, each one was extremely thought-provoking.
| 
